Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-18-2007, 08:00 AM   #121 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
And what does top dog mean?
If you have to ask, I probably can't explain it in a way that you will understand. Being "The top dog" doesn't mean you have to be the best at any one thing or anything. It means through perception, reality, whatever, others look to you to set the agenda. Your presence helps to maintain order and stability. When your position is challenged others watch carefully how you respond, your response sets the tone. Respond in the wrong way and everything falls into chaos. Respond in the correct way calm and order are preserved. If you let low ranking members get away with defiant behaviors you risk higher ranking members to directly challenge your position.

Sadaam, was a low ranking member getting away with defiant behavior. It needed to end. At risk were not only threats from him, but the entire ME going into chaos and possibly the rest of the world. Iran, China, North Korea all have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq. Currently all eyes are on how we (The Top Dog) handles the situation.

I know in advance what some of you will say. And I say we don't live in a Disney Land like world. Power struggles are governed by animalistic behaviors, and before comment take a detailed look at historical transitions of power and read "The Art of War". Historically cultures who fail in the art of war get enslaved (serve others) or die. Perhaps 1000 years from now we will evolve and we can all be happy, but that day ain't today.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 08:05 AM   #122 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I think "top dog" also infers that you seem to, at least on the surface, know what the hell you're doing. And that you don't lead your group into chaos. And that you have the confidence of those you are leading. We all know what happens to the "top dog" when he starts limping around, don't we? Guess what...GWB made us gimpy. Ya.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 08:58 AM   #123 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I think "top dog" also infers that you seem to, at least on the surface, know what the hell you're doing. And that you don't lead your group into chaos. And that you have the confidence of those you are leading. We all know what happens to the "top dog" when he starts limping around, don't we? Guess what...GWB made us gimpy. Ya.
Yes. The American public has lost (or has never had) confidence in GWB. the importance of this has been commented on, and the response is usually about free speech and "don't call us unpatriotic", we support the troops, etc., when what we need is a unified voice. Taking political shots at GWB is hurting our cause not helping. Democrats gave GWB the authority to wage war, they gave him the funding, GWB was re-elected, GWB has offered a change in strategy. Now we need agreement on a plan. Democrats need to either support GWB's plan or tell us the following:

What is your plan?
What are we going to do if we withdraw and the civil war turns into ethnic cleansing?
What if Iran, Syria, Turkey got involved in the civil war?
What if Iraq turns into a haven for terrorist, what are we going to do?

You are correct GWB is in a weakend state. That as a given our enemy is going to be more aggressive.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:04 AM   #124 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If you have to ask, I probably can't explain it in a way that you will understand. Being "The top dog" doesn't mean you have to be the best at any one thing or anything. It means through perception, reality, whatever, others look to you to set the agenda. Your presence helps to maintain order and stability. When your position is challenged others watch carefully how you respond, your response sets the tone. Respond in the wrong way and everything falls into chaos. Respond in the correct way calm and order are preserved. If you let low ranking members get away with defiant behaviors you risk higher ranking members to directly challenge your position.
So it's a state of mind more than actual power. Gotcha. If that's the case, then being top dog is a temendous responsibility. I don't think our government is up to it. Frankly, I don't think China or the EU are up to it either. We'd probably be better off with a checks and balances type of arrangement with the other powers. Had that been the case in 2003, I think we can all agree that Asia and Europe would have kept the US out of Iraq.

If we are top dog, why did over half the planet protest the US invasion of Iraq? Shouldn't they have fallen into line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Sadaam, was a low ranking member getting away with defiant behavior. It needed to end. At risk were not only threats from him, but the entire ME going into chaos and possibly the rest of the world. Iran, China, North Korea all have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq. Currently all eyes are on how we (The Top Dog) handles the situation.
The US had and has no legal authority over Iraq. Had we been in danger, I would ahve supported some military action. All we've proven now is that if we don't like you, you're f**ked. That's more like a bully than a top dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know in advance what some of you will say. And I say we don't live in a Disney Land like world. Power struggles are governed by animalistic behaviors, and before comment take a detailed look at historical transitions of power and read "The Art of War". Historically cultures who fail in the art of war get enslaved (serve others) or die. Perhaps 1000 years from now we will evolve and we can all be happy, but that day ain't today.
AH! That's the problem. If we are going to lead, then we had better figure out what example we want to make. Power struggles between people or groups without morals are animalistic. We are not animals, and when we behave like animals, we give permission for our enemies to behave like animals.

I've read the Art of War several times.

"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."

"If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped."

"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."

"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

"Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. While speed may sometimes be injudicious, tardiness can never be anything but foolish."
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:14 AM   #125 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Yes. The American public has lost (or has never had) confidence in GWB. the importance of this has been commented on, and the response is usually about free speech and "don't call us unpatriotic", we support the troops, etc., when what we need is a unified voice. Taking political shots at GWB is hurting our cause not helping. Democrats gave GWB the authority to wage war, they gave him the funding, GWB was re-elected, GWB has offered a change in strategy. Now we need agreement on a plan. Democrats need to either support GWB's plan or tell us the following:

What is your plan?
What are we going to do if we withdraw and the civil war turns into ethnic cleansing?
What if Iran, Syria, Turkey got involved in the civil war?
What if Iraq turns into a haven for terrorist, what are we going to do?

You are correct GWB is in a weakend state. That as a given our enemy is going to be more aggressive.
If you were familiar with my posts on this thread, you would know that I don't support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. At least not in the very near future.

I don't have to "have a plan." I'm supposed to be under the impression that my leader does. It's not my fault that he screwed up. I didn't vote for him. I'm supposed to put my faith blindly in an administration that put us in this mess in the first place and that continues to ignore the advice of those who would be able to contribute to a workable plan? Bullshit! No, my faith lies squarely with the people, conservative or liberal, who endorse multi-lateral solutions which will effectively result in us, the top dog, realizing that there is no I in the word team.

Meaning that if the world keeps turning the way it is, there will no longer be need for one nation-state to be "top dog." And I think that's a good thing ultimately.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:16 AM   #126 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Respond in the wrong way and everything falls into chaos.
I agree. Example: Iraq.

Quote:
Sadaam, was a low ranking member getting away with defiant behavior.
Oh no! Oh my god! Someone dared to mouth off about the US! Yeah that's TOTALLY a reason to invade his country and get him killed.

Quote:
It needed to end.
No, it didn't. He wasn't hurting us.

Quote:
At risk were not only threats from him,
I can threaten to turn you into a newt, but if I lack the ability it really doesn't matter. Saddam could rattle his sabre all he wanted, it wouldn't give him the capability to attack us. Hell Kuwait was on the outer edge of his missile range, and when he did fire at them he missed most of the time. Saddam never had the capacity to attack us militarilly. If you wanna start attacking people because they pose a threat to us, then why didn't we invade N. Korea, which has nukes, the capability of hitting us, and has threatened to do so?


Quote:
but the entire ME going into chaos and possibly the rest of the world.
It's going into chaos now. Our actions didn't help much, did they.

Quote:
Iran, China, North Korea all have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq. Currently all eyes are on how we (The Top Dog) handles the situation.
Yeah, and all those eyes are wondering WTF our problem is. If Iran, China, and NK have the potential to be bigger problems than Iraq, why didn't we deal with them? That's like spending all your energy swatting the mosquito while ignoring the grizzly bear charging you.

Quote:
I know in advance what some of you will say. And I say we don't live in a Disney Land like world. Power struggles are governed by animalistic behaviors, and before comment take a detailed look at historical transitions of power and read "The Art of War". Historically cultures who fail in the art of war get enslaved (serve others) or die.
And historically governments that waste time, energy, money, and soldiers in conflicts they have no business being in collapse and disappear. See: Napoleon, Hitler, the USSR. . .

Quote:
Perhaps 1000 years from now we will evolve and we can all be happy, but that day ain't today.
Gee Ace, I thought we were the top dog - the guy everyone else looks to. Why don't we start this evolution?

Quote:
what we need is a unified voice. Taking political shots at GWB is hurting our cause not helping.
Our cause is immoral, illegal, and filled with war crimes. Our cause SHOULD be to keep us safe, not to attack countries because it sounds like fun. GWB wants our cause to be the latter, and quite frankly I am not interested in helping that cause.

Quote:
Democrats gave GWB the authority to wage war,
They gave him the authority to wage war to defend our country from danger. We were not in danger from Iraq, he misused that authority. Quit trying to pin this on the democrats. The fault for this mess lies squarely with the white house.

Quote:
they gave him the funding, GWB was re-elected,
Maybe. when the CEO of the voting machine company promises to rig the election in favor of Bush, I have trouble believing he was legitimately elected.

Quote:
GWB has offered a change in strategy.
No, he hasn't. He's offered to throw more troops into the fray, but also to invade Iran. That's not changing the strategy, it's just moving it to another country.

Quote:
Now we need agreement on a plan. Democrats need to either support GWB's plan or tell us the following:

What is your plan?
Leave. Now.

Quote:
What are we going to do if we withdraw and the civil war turns into ethnic cleansing?
It's already doing that, it's already going to do that, there's nothing we can do about it.

Quote:
What if Iran, Syria, Turkey got involved in the civil war?
They will, whether we're there or not. Hopefully 100 years from now this, combined with Vietnam, will be a lesson that will teach America to mind its own damn business and to keep its military away from where it doesn't belong. You'll excuse me if I don't have much faith that this lesson will actually stick.

Quote:
What if Iraq turns into a haven for terrorist, what are we going to do?
it already is. We're the ones who made it that way. Staying there isn't going to stop that. Staying there is only going to make the Arab world even more pissed off at us.


Your arguments make no sense. The logical leaps required to comprehend them are completely invalid. If we want to stop the terrorists, logically we'd go after the terrorists. But we pulled out of Afghanistan, and Bush himself said he wasn't real worried about catching bin Laden. If you can explain to me, logically, how we can stop terrorism by letting the real terrorists go, I'll listen.

I think you'd have a better chance convincing me that rain is dry.
shakran is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:55 AM   #127 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So it's a state of mind more than actual power. Gotcha.
Like I said if you have to ask... Somtimes its actual power, sometimes its not. A 75 pound girl can be the Top Dog to a 1300 pound horse.

Quote:
If that's the case, then being top dog is a temendous responsibility. I don't think our government is up to it. Frankly, I don't think China or the EU are up to it either. We'd probably be better off with a checks and balances type of arrangement with the other powers.
I agree. We are close to that, but not there yet.

Quote:
Had that been the case in 2003, I think we can all agree that Asia and Europe would have kept the US out of Iraq.
Perhaps.

Quote:
If we are top dog, why did over half the planet protest the US invasion of Iraq? Shouldn't they have fallen into line?
Not always a popularity contest.

Quote:
The US had and has no legal authority over Iraq.
The Top Dog doesn't need legal authority.

Quote:
Had we been in danger, I would ahve supported some military action. All we've proven now is that if we don't like you, you're f**ked. That's more like a bully than a top dog.
I can't think of the comedians name but he did a thing on dicks, assholes and pussies. I am sure you can see the punchline. I will look for a link to the joke. But you are correct in theory.

Quote:
AH! That's the problem. If we are going to lead, then we had better figure out what example we want to make.
GWB has been pretty clear about what he wants. That is different from disagreeing with what he wants. The problem in America is that we elected GWB twice, but then we say he is an idiot, lier, etc.

Quote:
Power struggles between people or groups without morals are animalistic.
Have you ever worked in a large corporation? People in $1200 suits can be brutal without drawing blood.

Quote:
We are not animals
Speak for yourself. Woof Wooof.

Quote:
and when we behave like animals, we give permission for our enemies to behave like animals.
Somtimes "men" have to do the things that "women and children" are better off not knowing about. "men", "women" and "children" used in a symbolic way not literal.

Quote:
I've read the Art of War several times.

"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."
I agree.

Quote:
"If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped."


"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."


"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."
These are the reasons we need to aggressivly put an end to this mess, and stop playing around.

Quote:
"Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. While speed may sometimes be injudicious, tardiness can never be anything but foolish."
Doesn't support your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
If you were familiar with my posts on this thread, you would know that I don't support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. At least not in the very near future.
I was making the point about the Democrats in Congress.

Quote:
I don't have to "have a plan." I'm supposed to be under the impression that my leader does. It's not my fault that he screwed up. I didn't vote for him. I'm supposed to put my faith blindly in an administration that put us in this mess in the first place and that continues to ignore the advice of those who would be able to contribute to a workable plan? Bullshit! No, my faith lies squarely with the people, conservative or liberal, who endorse multi-lateral solutions which will effectively result in us, the top dog, realizing that there is no I in the word team.

Meaning that if the world keeps turning the way it is, there will no longer be need for one nation-state to be "top dog." And I think that's a good thing ultimately.
We will most likely never agree on why we got into this mess, but we agree that we are in a mess. Now we need to get out of it. On one hand we have GWB continuing to try to lead, on the other we have presidential hopefuls taking pot-shots. I am interested in the Democratic answers to the 4 questions I listed. I might agree with their plan.

Inspite of my tone this is an issue I have struggled with and why I keep putting my thoughts in writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Oh no! Oh my god! Someone dared to mouth off about the US! Yeah that's TOTALLY a reason to invade his country and get him killed.
When you have been in positions of authority, how have you handled defiant behavior? What did you do when all else failed, did you take the final action within your authority?

Quote:
I can threaten to turn you into a newt, but if I lack the ability it really doesn't matter.
I deal in reality. If you threaten to kill me, I don't care about your ability to actually kill me, I won't ignore it - I won't forget it.

Quote:
Saddam could rattle his sabre all he wanted, it wouldn't give him the capability to attack us.
What was he doing with the billions being stolen from the oil for food program?


Quote:
Your arguments make no sense.
One, two or all of them.

I argued that Iraq is a mess and we are partially to blame and therfore have some responsibility to fix the mess. That makes no sense to you? If it doesn't, well we just don't speak the same language (symbolically).
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 01-18-2007 at 10:18 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:02 AM   #128 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
As far as "top dog" goes........ we aren't and may never be again.

"Top dogs" lead by example and don't have to attack just to attack (as we did in Iraq).

"Top dogs" set standards and keep them...... look at our country the only standard we have is getting so far in debt our great grandchildren will be working to pay it off.

"Top dogs" don't have to stand around telling everyone how they are "top dog" everyone else already knows.

"Top dogs" help the weak, knowing that someday when they get strong they'll make great allies. We exploit the weak, take their resources, keep in power dictatorial, power hungry, hated leaders (Shah of Iran, Marcos, even Saddam, etc) and when the people revolt in those countries as they have.... we don't understand why they hate us so much.

But most of all "Top dogs" don't allow themselves to get soft in the middle and not advance..... we allowed other countries to pass us, economically, educationally, mentally, and so on. The ONLY 2 things this country has that keep people from treating us like a second rate country are the nuclear missiles and our consumption that is putting us farther and farther into debt.

If a "Top Dog" leads only by fear...... he is destined to not only be killed but slaughtered and used as an example.

Ace, you keep wanting to be Top Dog but all you want to do is lead by fear and might...... that only brings forth hatred and spawns violence, it's never a long run at the top when you lead by fear.

When you lead by example, when you lead and strive to keep leading but help the weak to advance..... you stay leader a hell of a lot longer and you inspire everyone else to be the positive you are.

Positive energy begets positive results........ negative energy begets negative results both build exponentially and both are equally as powerful.... positive energy flows and spreads through positive results and creates beauty..... negative energy condenses, spreads through fear, hatred and poor leadership, destroys anything of beuaty and replaces it with ugliness.

If we are "Top Dog" then the leaders of our country set the world tone..... gee, corruption, power hungry, rich men, who are trying to squeeze everything they can get out of the rind, so that when the rest of the country spoils they have their safety nets.

Yep...... we're in good hands.

Edit: Upon re-reading this there are 2 things so I am changing the above statement;
Quote:
"The ONLY thing this country has that keeps people from treating us like a second rate country are the nuclear missiles."
to this:
Quote:
"The ONLY 2 things this country has that keep people from treating us like a second rate country are the nuclear missiles and our greedy, mass comercialized consumption that is putting us farther and farther into debt."
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 01-18-2007 at 11:33 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:03 AM   #129 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The Top Dog doesn't need legal authority.
Seriously? So you think the US is free to do what it wants, when it wants? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've misplaced your faith in an imperfect government that can and does do wrong. Why would you give a free pass to anyone in power? I just don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I can't think of the comedians name but he did a thing on dicks, assholes and pussies. I am sure you can see the punchline. I will look for a link to the joke. But you are correct in theory.
Team America: World Police. The movie where the puppets got it on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
GWB has been pretty clear about what he wants. That is different from disagreeing with what he wants. The problem in America is that we elected GWB twice, but then we say he is an idiot, lier, etc.
GWB has never been clear about anything because he lacks to ability to speak like a normal human being. I *think* what he has said is that he wants to stop terrorism, so he attacked Iraq. We all know those were two sepereate wars. The real problem is that Bush hasn't actually won an election, and no one has had the balls to call him out on it in a realistic way. He is obviously an idiot, he mislead congress (misleading people is a type of deception, a.k.a. lying), and he has a lot in the "etc." department, including aspiring emperor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Have you ever worked in a large corporation? People in $1200 suits can be brutal without drawing blood.
Yes. I'm Executive Vice President of a medium sized corporation, and all my power comes from the ability to treat the workers like human beings instead of machines or work horses. I'll admit that I can be very tenacious when it comes to looking out for those who depend on me, but to cross the line and become like a child or an animal, things like posturing, distrusting others, selfishness, etc. have no place in the workplace and no place on the battlefield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Somtimes "men" have to do the things that "women and children" are better off not knowing about. "men", "women" and "children" used in a symbolic way not literal.
You calling me a woman? I'll beat your ass! JK

If everyone in the world thought to themselves "would my mother/father/pastor/brother/sister/etc. approve of this?" before they made their decisions, I doubt there would be war. There is a reason that other people have opinions and feelings on matters; perspective. Sometimes we can be wrapped up so much in our own little world that we can lose sight of what's really important and we can lose ourselves. What keeps us rounded is our socieities perspective. In the end, the reason for a military is not for posturing or controling others, it is to defend the defenceless and to protect the common good as a last resort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
These are the reasons we need to aggressivly put an end to this mess, and stop playing around.
And that is to send 20,000 more troops? That doesn't even make up for AWOL, injured and deceased troops since the war started. We're just going back to 2003 all over again and it's going to continue until Bush leaves office. That, I can guerentee.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:29 AM   #130 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I have changed my position. You folks are correct. I think we should remove our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
Bush is a lame duck. Congress should take the initiative and cut military funding if Bush refuses to follow the plan Congress recommends, hopfully a plan that will have virtually the full support of the American people, our European and Asian allies, and the support of nieboring countries to Iraq in the ME. After we remove our troops we should begin full diplomatic efforts to bring about lasting peace in the ME.

Thanks for helping me see the light.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:33 AM   #131 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Like I said if you have to ask...
Just because someone doesn't agree with you when you're 100% wrong does not mean they don't understand. Insulting someone's intelligence because they won't go along with something stupid isn't the brightest idea.

Quote:
The Top Dog doesn't need legal authority.
Imperialist bullshit that true patriotic Americans who understand the concept of liberty would never support.


Quote:
GWB has been pretty clear about what he wants.
No, he hasn't. First it was because the terrists were gonna get us. Then it was because Saddam had WMD. Then it was because Saddam was mean. Now we're back to the terrist thing, only we're not going after the terrist that actually got us.

Quote:
The problem in America is that we elected GWB twice,
He was not elected the first time. He was appointed by the supreme court. I'll resist the urge to comment about activist judges here. The second time we've already discussed as far as the questions surrounding it - something you choose to pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your fantasy view of the world.

At any rate, even if he was legitimately elected both times, I never voted for him. And many of those who did are now realizing the mistake they made. Just because you say one thing 2 and 6 years ago doesn't mean you can't change your mind.

Quote:
but then we say he is an idiot, lier, etc.
If the shoe fits. . .


Quote:
Somtimes "men" have to do the things that "women and children" are better off not knowing about. "men", "women" and "children" used in a symbolic way not literal.
And sometimes those "men" end up committing atrocities that they shouldn't be doing. This is why we have checks and balances. We let that system break down here, and look where it's gotten us.


Quote:
We will most likely never agree on why we got into this mess, but we agree that we are in a mess. Now we need to get out of it. On one hand we have GWB continuing to try to lead
GWB is the one that got us into this mess in the first place. I dunno about you but if someone drives my car into a brick wall, I'm not gonna let him keep driving.

Quote:
on the other we have presidential hopefuls taking pot-shots.
By which you mean pointing out the insanity that has taken over the executive branch.

Quote:
When you have been in positions of authority, how have you handled defiant behavior?
If one of my guys mouths off to me I damn sure won't punch him. Some of us are capable of handling our differences without getting thousands of people killed. Unfortunately, GWB is not.

Quote:
What did you do when all else failed, did you take the final action within your authority?
1) negotiations have worked pretty well for me. 2) Bush did not explore all the other options. 3) comparing workplace personality conflicts with a madman trying to start world war 3 is stupid.

Quote:
I deal in reality. If you threaten to kill me, I don't care about your ability to actually kill me,
Then you don't deal in reality, you deal in some bizarre rambo-esque fantasy. You're trying to tell me that if your little kid gets mad and yells he's going to kill you, you're gonna blow his head off? It's dangerous bullshit attitudes like this that got us into this mess in the first place. It's time we as Americans stow the high-and-mighty crap and start trying to get along.

Quote:
What was he doing with the billions being stolen from the oil for food program?
Building more palaces for himself. If he had so much money that he was pumping into his war machine then 1) why couldn't his Scuds hit the broadside of a barn, and 2) where the hell are all these WMD's that he was supposed to have been buying with all this money?

Quote:
I argued that Iraq is a mess and we are partially to blame and therfore have some responsibility to fix the mess.
You're acting as though all messes can be fixed and everything can end up with us all living happily ever after. That works in fairy tales but this is the real world. Yes, we caused that mess. We are not partly to blame - we are completely and wholly to blame. But unfortunately some messes just can't be fixed, at least not by the imperialist bully that created them. This is one of those messes. We can't do any good in there. Why stay and make things worse?
shakran is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 12:23 PM   #132 (permalink)
Banned
 
ace, you've been snookered....taken to the cleaners, but you're better off than a lot of other people....too many of whom are dead, disfigured, or missing a limb because of you're "intellectual alignment" this flawed and incompetent little man, and his hubris and lack of curiosity.
Quote:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-28702537_ITM
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Newswe...0037&oliID=229
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl.../ai_kepm319403

The Truth Behind the Pillars: The final act: They cultivate an Olympian air, but the justices are quite human--and can be quite political.(Nation)

Source: Newsweek

Publication Date: 25-DEC-00

The Truth Behind the Pillars: The final act: They cultivate an Olympian air, but the justices are quite human--and can be quite political.(Nation)

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband, John, a Washington lawyer, have long been comfortable on the cocktail and charity-ball circuit. So at an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to NEWSWEEK. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.

O'Connor had no way of knowing, as she watched the early returns, that election night would end in deadlock and confusion--or that five weeks later she would play a direct and decisive role in the election of George W. Bush. O'Connor could not possibly have foreseen that she would be one of two swing votes in the court's 5-4 decision ending the manual recount in Florida and forcing Al Gore to finally concede defeat. But her remarks will fuel criticism that the justices not only "follow the election returns," as the old saying goes, but, in the case of George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, Jr., sought to influence them.....
Quote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl.../ai_kepm319403
<b>Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?</b>
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, The, Spring 2003 by Neumann, Richard K Jr

On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story that included the following:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors. . . . Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court, she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona . . . . At an Election Night party at the Washington, D.C., home of Mary Ann Stoessel, widow of former Ambassador Walter Stoessel, the justice's husband, John O'Connor, mentioned to others her desire to step down, according to three witnesses. But Mr. O'Connor said his wife would be reluctant to retire if a Democrat were in the White House and would choose her replacement. Justice O'Connor declined to comment.3

In a story published the following day, Christopher Hitchens, the United States correspondent for the Evening Standard of London, wrote that "O'Connor . . . has allegedly told her friends and family that she wishes to retire from the Court but won't do so if there is to be a Democratic president to nominate her replacement."4 Helen Thomas, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote that "[t]he story going around [Washington] is that a very upset Justice Sandra Day O'Connor walked out of a dinner party on election night when she heard the first mistaken broadcast that Vice President A Gore had won. The ailing O'Connor apparently wants to retire, but not while a Democrat is in the White House and could pick her successor."5 Various parts of this story were repeated in a number of publications.6

The following week, Newsweek published a more detailed account:

[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to Newsweek. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.7

This, too, was repeated in a large number of publications, both in the United States8 and abroad.9

According to an article in USA Today five weeks after the Court decided Bush v. Gore, "[p]eople close to the justices confirmed much of the story, which was first reported in the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek magazine."10 At that point, a defense tentatively circulated and then disappeared. USA Today added that "some people suggest that O'Connor was actually upset that the election was being called for Gore while the West Coast polls were still open."11 This theory was not again reported in the mainstream media, perhaps because it cannot be reconciled with the comments attributed to Justice O'Connor in the Newsweek article or to the comments attributed in many of the articles to John O'Connor, presumably the person most qualified to attest to Justice O'Connor's intentions.

Later, in his book on the court battles that lead to Bush v. Gore, Jeffrey Toobin repeated the election night story and included a direct quote from John O'Connor:

Justice O'Connor said "This is terrible," and she hastened away from the television . . . . Her husband, John, explained her reaction to the partygoers, saying, "She's very disappointed because she was hoping to retire"-that is, with a Republican president to appoint her successor.12

Toobin also described another incident, which occurred while the Supreme Court was adjudicating Bush v. Gore:

On . . . the day of the Supreme Court's first opinion on the election, O'Connor and her husband had attended a party for about thirty people at the home of a wealthy couple named Lee and Julie Folger. When the subject of the election controversy came up, Justice O'Connor was livid. "You just don't know what those Gore people have been doing," she said. "They went into a nursing home and registered people that they shouldn't have. It was outrageous." It was unclear where the justice had picked up this unproved accusation, which had circulated only in the more eccentric right-wing outlets, but O'Connor recounted the story with fervor.13
You can't fall back on the excuse that he was elected twice....he received a million less votes than the man he ran against in 2000, and he was fortunate enough to be the son of a man who had himself stacked the SCOTUS with sympathetic partisans, and was VPOTUS under a man who did likewise......resulting in five "justices" willing to discard all legal precedent and their own oaths of office to rule him the "winner" of a questionable and bitterly contested election, in the state where his brother got to pick the election oversight offiicials.....
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...e162076ei=5090
Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush
By RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004

.....In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. <b>''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.</b> And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. <b>We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''</b>

Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

The 9/11 commission did not directly address the question of whether Bush exerted influence over the intelligence community about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. That question will be investigated after the election, but if no tangible evidence of undue pressure is found, few officials or alumni of the administration whom I spoke to are likely to be surprised. ''If you operate in a certain way -- by saying this is how I want to justify what I've already decided to do, and I don't care how you pull it off -- you guarantee that you'll get faulty, one-sided information,'' Paul O'Neill, who was asked to resign his post of treasury secretary in December 2002, said when we had dinner a few weeks ago. ''You don't have to issue an edict, or twist arms, or be overt.''

In a way, the president got what he wanted: a National Intelligence Estimate on W.M.D. that creatively marshaled a few thin facts, and then Colin Powell putting his credibility on the line at the United Nations in a show of faith. That was enough for George W. Bush to press forward and invade Iraq. As he told his quasi-memoirist, Bob Woodward, in ''Plan of Attack'': ''Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify the war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray to be as good a messenger of his will as possible.''

Machiavelli's oft-cited line about the adequacy of the perception of power prompts a question. Is the appearance of confidence as important as its possession? Can confidence -- true confidence -- be willed? Or must it be earned?

George W. Bush, clearly, is one of history's great confidence men. That is not meant in the huckster's sense, though many critics claim that on the war in Iraq, the economy and a few other matters he has engaged in some manner of bait-and-switch. No, I mean it in the sense that he's a believer in the power of confidence. At a time when constituents are uneasy and enemies are probing for weaknesses, he clearly feels that unflinching confidence has an almost mystical power. It can all but create reality.

Whether you can run the world on faith, it's clear you can run one hell of a campaign on it...
host is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:46 PM   #133 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I have changed my position. You folks are correct. I think we should remove our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
Bush is a lame duck. Congress should take the initiative and cut military funding if Bush refuses to follow the plan Congress recommends, hopfully a plan that will have virtually the full support of the American people, our European and Asian allies, and the support of nieboring countries to Iraq in the ME. After we remove our troops we should begin full diplomatic efforts to bring about lasting peace in the ME.

Thanks for helping me see the light.
You're welcome for insulting the intelligence of most others who posted here, nearly all of whom never said remove our troops without taking other concurrent actions.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 02:52 PM   #134 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
You're welcome for insulting the intelligence of most others who posted here, nearly all of whom never said remove our troops without taking other concurrent actions.
One statement was that I changed my position.
Another statement was that you folks are correct.
A third is that I think we should remove our troops.
A fourth was that Bush is a lame duck (no one wrote that either).
A fifth - Congress should cut funding to force Bush to follow a congressional plan (no one said that either).
I also said I hope it was a plan we can support along with other nations.
Then I stated we should begin diplomatic efforts to solve the problem.

If the above insults your intelligence, you have a problem not me.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 03:05 PM   #135 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I have changed my position. You folks are correct. I think we should remove our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
Bush is a lame duck. Congress should take the initiative and cut military funding if Bush refuses to follow the plan Congress recommends, hopfully a plan that will have virtually the full support of the American people, our European and Asian allies, and the support of nieboring countries to Iraq in the ME. After we remove our troops we should begin full diplomatic efforts to bring about lasting peace in the ME.

Thanks for helping me see the light.
If I misinterpreted the above as a cynical response, you have my sincere apologies. Flip-flopping is not a bad thing if you are indeed sincere in your transformation. (contrary to what many Repubs may suggest).

But to fully see the light, at least from my perspective, you would see the value and necessity of "slogging" through serious and difficult diplomacy BEFORE we remove our troops so that we could at some reasonable time in the near future, BEGIN drawing down our troops and replacing them with a stabiliziation force negotiated with all the parties in Iraq AND the region.

But I'm also not naive enough to expect "lasting peace". My hope is a cessation of the daily death and displacement of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the destruction of their country.....something to build on for the longer term.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 01-18-2007 at 03:19 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 03:31 PM   #136 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
One statement was that I changed my position.
Another statement was that you folks are correct.
A third is that I think we should remove our troops.
A fourth was that Bush is a lame duck (no one wrote that either).
A fifth - Congress should cut funding to force Bush to follow a congressional plan (no one said that either).
I also said I hope it was a plan we can support along with other nations.
Then I stated we should begin diplomatic efforts to solve the problem.

If the above insults your intelligence, you have a problem not me.
I just figured you were being sarcastic.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 04:04 PM   #137 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
If I misinterpreted the above as a cynical response, you have my sincere apologies. Flip-flopping is not a bad thing if you are indeed sincere in your transformation. (contrary to what many Repubs may suggest).
This is what I wrote in #137 responding to a point made by Mixed.

Quote:
We will most likely never agree on why we got into this mess, but we agree that we are in a mess. Now we need to get out of it. On one hand we have GWB continuing to try to lead, on the other we have presidential hopefuls taking pot-shots. I am interested in the Democratic answers to the 4 questions I listed. I might agree with their plan.

Inspite of my tone this is an issue I have struggled with and why I keep putting my thoughts in writing.
As we further discussed the Top Dog concept, I had to honestly conclude that Bush and his plan will be ineffective. He has been weakend to the point that he can no longer lead.

Quote:
But to fully see the light, at least from my perspective, you would see the value and necessity of "slogging" through serious and difficult diplomacy BEFORE we remove our troops so that we could at some reasonable time in the near future, BEGIN drawing down our troops and replacing them with a stabiliziation force negotiated with all the parties in Iraq AND the region.
I have always had difficulty with having troops in Iraq in a rebuilding mission. My primary concern with Iraq was to remove Sadaam fro power. That has been done. If we don't have the will to supress the insurgency using the military, I think we should remove our troops. Diplomacy can occur after we are gone and our military is no longer at risk. The quotes from the Art of War provided by Will helped me realize retreat is our best option during this time of chaos. From the US point of view we need to have our debate and then act with the full support of the American people. We should not leave our military exposed during the debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I just figured you were being sarcastic.
I wish I had a dollar everytime I heard that. I simply write what I think. Writing helps me clarify my thoughts. When I use sarcasm, I point it out before submitting my post as to not offend anyone's intelligence ( See that was a sarcastic shot at DC).
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 01-18-2007 at 04:13 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 04:27 PM   #138 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
I tend to forgive Will and dc for thinking you were being sarcastic - - after all I do believe you're the first person, myself included, who's ever changed their mind, and admitted it, in the politics forum
shakran is offline  
 

Tags
debate, vent


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:58 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360